Legal Opinion

Fountain Water Co. v. Dougherty

California Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1901No. S.F. No. 2818PublishedCited by 6 opinions

' The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Application for writ of mandamus requiring the defendant to settle the .plaintiff’s proposed, statement- on motion for new trial in a suit for the condemnation of land brought by the city of Santa Rosa against him and another. The case is submitted on demurrer to the petition, and, briefly stated, is as follows: A verdict was rendered in the case, on certain issues, December 29, 1900, and “thereupon,” it is alleged, “the court ordered the clerk to enter the following findings and judgment, which were then and there entered by the clerk in the minute-book, to wit.” Here follow the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Reclamation District No. 556 v. ThisbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. County of Los Angeles v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Root v. DaughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Hoffman v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  4. Gibson v. McLaneArizona Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Barrows v. CassidySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API